5 ms·

This isn't about "encouraging boycotts", it's about business competitors colluding to weild their market power for political reasons. No one is saying that indi

by tazu 2y ago

This isn't about "encouraging boycotts", it's about business competitors colluding to weild their market power for political reasons. No one is saying that individual companies shouldn't be able to make their own decisions---it's the collusion. In this case, the collusion was allegedly orchestrated by GARM.

alamortsubite 2y ago
> it's about business competitors colluding to weild their market power for political reasons Did they choose not to advertise on X for political reasons, or because associating their brands with toxic content would damage their profitability?
- netsharc 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - KennyBlanken 2y ago
    That's exactly what Musk has claimed, and supposedly his reason for buying Twitter. It's also a common refrain from bigots of all types: "saying all non-whites are dishonest lazy violent criminals isn't bigotry, it's a political position!" You used to see this shit on slashdot back in the early aughts and it's just as tiresome today.
knowsuchagency 2y ago
He sued the nonprofit out of existence because they encouraged (not forced) companies not to advertise on his platform as he told them all to go fuck themselves. If that sounds like a free speech win, you might be the kind of genius who should start a car or rocket company.
- xhkkffbf 2y ago
  They haven't paid any judgement or do anything but engage lawyers. The monetary cost so far has been minimal. The fact that they folded immediately told me that they worried about losing and they wanted to minimize their liability.
drawkward 2y ago
Citizens United suggests to me that these businesses are acting as legal persons in this case, choosing when and how they allocate money. Persons can collude to boycott.
- criddell 2y ago
  Citizens United was about corporations spending money on elections, no? How would it apply here?
- xhkkffbf 2y ago
  But competitors can't. They can't form trusts and punish outside competitors. That's a big part of the Sherman anti-trust act.
  - afsdgiadnion 2y ago
    [flagged]
- yanderekko 2y ago
  Citizens United did not overturn the general body of antitrust law...
rini17 2y ago
Are you saying competitors serving same market segment must not come to the same conclusions so as to where to advertise and where not? Because that would be political?
- tazu 2y ago
  > X is arguing that whenever you have a group of companies that are competitors, and they take an action that is contingent on their competitor's cooperation ("I'll boycott if and only if you do the same"), then that is, on its face, an anti-competitive action that violates the Sherman Act, which prohibits "restraint of trade."
  - rini17 2y ago
    You imply they have put in place any contingencies/enforcement against non-cooperating companies? I don't expect that wil be shown in the case. The advertisers just got together to define voluntary guidelines where to advertise and where to draw the line. Anyone was free to ignore the guidelines at their own peril(their ads shown next to filthy material).
  - brookst 2y ago
    Wait, doesn't that mean that Hollywood, the theaters, and MPAA are a restraint of trade? And really any voluntary business code, like Fair Trade or LEED or the AMA's medical ethics codes are illegal?
KennyBlanken 2y ago
> business competitors They're not competitors, they're customers; WFA is a worldwide association of smaller marketing associations and multinational corporations: https://www.wfanet.org/about-wfa/our-members/global-brands https://www.wfanet.org/about-wfa/our-members/global-brands The marketing associations include purchasers, advertising/marketing agencies, and yes, other ad providers. > colluding You need to look up that word in the dictionary. An industry trade group publicly announcing (with press releases and an entire website) something is not collusion. > for political reasons "Twitter doesn't do anything about hate speech, has re-instated numerous people whose sole identity is gender, racial, sexual orientation, and ethnicity based bigotry and the CEO repeatedly makes white supremacist comments - and thus the platform is not safe for our members or brands or in line with their policies/'values'" is not "political." Musk is a supposed free speech absolutist/purist. To an extreme degree, I might add; he claims even a social media company deplatforming people is a violation of someone's free speech rights and was his motivation for purchasing Twitter. Yet he routinely bans people from his platform for even mentioning unflattering things about him or his companies, and conveniently seems to forget that freedom of association is part of the first amendment. Then there's the journalist-banning bender Twitter has been on since Musk bought it which is not at all compatible with being a first amendment extreme absolutist. The fact that the Kingdom of Saud was a major financial backer in the purchase and really, really doesn't like the platform twitter provides for journalists has nothing to do with all of this /s At least he's consistent about being inconsistent.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
phatfish 2y ago
Musk asked (in his own special way) companies with a marketing budget available to use on Twitter to leave when they raised concerns. They took up his offer. Maybe the richest man in the world wanted to be able to play the victim (again).
afsdgiadnion 2y ago
[flagged]

by tazu 2y ago

alamortsubite 2y ago

> it's about business competitors colluding to weild their market power for political reasons Did they choose not to advertise on X for political reasons, or because associating their brands with toxic content would damage their profitability?

netsharc 2y ago
[flagged]
- KennyBlanken 2y ago
  That's exactly what Musk has claimed, and supposedly his reason for buying Twitter. It's also a common refrain from bigots of all types: "saying all non-whites are dishonest lazy violent criminals isn't bigotry, it's a political position!" You used to see this shit on slashdot back in the early aughts and it's just as tiresome today.

knowsuchagency 2y ago

He sued the nonprofit out of existence because they encouraged (not forced) companies not to advertise on his platform as he told them all to go fuck themselves. If that sounds like a free speech win, you might be the kind of genius who should start a car or rocket company.

xhkkffbf 2y ago
They haven't paid any judgement or do anything but engage lawyers. The monetary cost so far has been minimal. The fact that they folded immediately told me that they worried about losing and they wanted to minimize their liability.

drawkward 2y ago

Citizens United suggests to me that these businesses are acting as legal persons in this case, choosing when and how they allocate money. Persons can collude to boycott.

criddell 2y ago
Citizens United was about corporations spending money on elections, no? How would it apply here?
xhkkffbf 2y ago
But competitors can't. They can't form trusts and punish outside competitors. That's a big part of the Sherman anti-trust act.
- afsdgiadnion 2y ago
  [flagged]
yanderekko 2y ago
Citizens United did not overturn the general body of antitrust law...

rini17 2y ago

Are you saying competitors serving same market segment must not come to the same conclusions so as to where to advertise and where not? Because that would be political?

tazu 2y ago
> X is arguing that whenever you have a group of companies that are competitors, and they take an action that is contingent on their competitor's cooperation ("I'll boycott if and only if you do the same"), then that is, on its face, an anti-competitive action that violates the Sherman Act, which prohibits "restraint of trade."
- rini17 2y ago
  You imply they have put in place any contingencies/enforcement against non-cooperating companies? I don't expect that wil be shown in the case. The advertisers just got together to define voluntary guidelines where to advertise and where to draw the line. Anyone was free to ignore the guidelines at their own peril(their ads shown next to filthy material).
- brookst 2y ago
  Wait, doesn't that mean that Hollywood, the theaters, and MPAA are a restraint of trade? And really any voluntary business code, like Fair Trade or LEED or the AMA's medical ethics codes are illegal?

KennyBlanken 2y ago

> business competitors They're not competitors, they're customers; WFA is a worldwide association of smaller marketing associations and multinational corporations: https://www.wfanet.org/about-wfa/our-members/global-brands https://www.wfanet.org/about-wfa/our-members/global-brands The marketing associations include purchasers, advertising/marketing agencies, and yes, other ad providers. > colluding You need to look up that word in the dictionary. An industry trade group publicly announcing (with press releases and an entire website) something is not collusion. > for political reasons "Twitter doesn't do anything about hate speech, has re-instated numerous people whose sole identity is gender, racial, sexual orientation, and ethnicity based bigotry and the CEO repeatedly makes white supremacist comments - and thus the platform is not safe for our members or brands or in line with their policies/'values'" is not "political." Musk is a supposed free speech absolutist/purist. To an extreme degree, I might add; he claims even a social media company deplatforming people is a violation of someone's free speech rights and was his motivation for purchasing Twitter. Yet he routinely bans people from his platform for even mentioning unflattering things about him or his companies, and conveniently seems to forget that freedom of association is part of the first amendment. Then there's the journalist-banning bender Twitter has been on since Musk bought it which is not at all compatible with being a first amendment extreme absolutist. The fact that the Kingdom of Saud was a major financial backer in the purchase and really, really doesn't like the platform twitter provides for journalists has nothing to do with all of this /s At least he's consistent about being inconsistent.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

phatfish 2y ago

Musk asked (in his own special way) companies with a marketing budget available to use on Twitter to leave when they raised concerns. They took up his offer. Maybe the richest man in the world wanted to be able to play the victim (again).

afsdgiadnion 2y ago

[flagged]